Patino v. Palmer et al
Petitioner: Tulio F. Patino
Respondent: Jack Palmer and Attorney General of Nevada
Case Number: 3:2009cv00336
Filed: June 29, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
County: Pershing
Presiding Judge: Brian E. Sandoval
Presiding Judge: Robert A. McQuaid
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 35 JUDGMENT. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. No certificate of appealability shall issue. Signed by Clerk of Court, Lance S. Wilson on 4/1/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)
January 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's 30 motion is GRANTED. Petitioner shall have up to and including February 11, 2011, in which to file and serve a reply to the 28 answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. FURTHER ORDERED, petitioner's previously unaddressed motion for late filing (docket no. 21 ) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/14/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
October 26, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's 25 motion is GRANTED. Ground Two of the petition is dismissed without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have thirty (30) days to file their answer to the remaining grounds for relief. Petitioner shall have thirty (30) days to reply. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/26/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
August 3, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that respondents' 16 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court finds ground two to be unexhausted in state court. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days to show go od cause for his failure to exhaust his unhausted claims. Respondents shall have twenty (20) days to respond. Petitioner shall have fifteen (15) days to reply. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner may advise the Court of his desire to abandon the unhausted claims (ground two) by filing a sworn declaration of abandonment. ( Notice of Compliance is due by 9/4/2010.) Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/3/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Patino v. Palmer et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Tulio F. Patino
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Jack Palmer
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Attorney General of Nevada
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?